An election can change a government overnight. But if citizens begin to doubt the institution that conducts it, the damage can reach far deeper: it can shake democracy itself. OSWALD PEREIRA reports
Every election asks a fundamental democratic question: who has the authority to govern? The answer comes from the people, but the credibility of that answer depends on the institution that conducts the election. That is why the Election Commission matters.
Democracy rests on the sovereignty of the citizen. Governments do not possess power by inheritance or entitlement; they receive it through the consent of the people. In India, that consent is expressed primarily through elections. The ballot is therefore more than a vote for a candidate or party. It is the citizen’s instrument for deciding who will exercise the power of the state.
This places an extraordinary constitutional responsibility on the Election Commission of India. Article 324 entrusts it with the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President. The Commission is therefore not simply an agency that organises polling. It safeguards the process through which political power passes from the citizen to the government.
That is the larger significance of the controversy surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Questions have been raised about electoral rolls, procedures and reported differences within the Commission, while the Commission has defended its decisions and said that important decisions were taken unanimously. Those competing claims should be assessed through evidence and due scrutiny.
But the controversy points to a question much larger than the particular allegations: what must a constitutional institution do to ensure that citizens remain confident that elections are a genuine expression of their will?
The answer begins with independence.
The Election Commission is placed in an unusual position. It supervises a contest in which the government of the day is itself a participant. It must therefore exercise authority without appearing to serve the interests of either the ruling party or the Opposition. Its decisions may displease one side or another. That is inevitable. What is not inevitable is the perception that the rules are being applied differently to different political actors.
This is why the Commission’s conduct matters beyond the immediate disputes that surround it. An election does not merely produce a winner. It confers legitimacy on the winner. The defeated party may reject the government’s policies, challenge its decisions and campaign to remove it at the next election. But democracy depends on the defeated accepting that political power has changed hands through a legitimate constitutional process.
That acceptance is not automatic. It rests on the belief that the rules were fair and that the institution enforcing them was impartial.
This does not mean that every criticism of the Election Commission is valid. Political parties have obvious reasons to challenge decisions that disadvantage them. An allegation is not evidence, and an internal disagreement is not necessarily proof of institutional failure. Treating every accusation as established fact would be as damaging to democracy as suppressing legitimate criticism.
The proper response is scrutiny based on evidence.
When serious questions are raised about electoral procedures, the Commission should be prepared to explain its decisions. Transparency is particularly important when electoral rolls are involved because the roll determines who can participate in the election in the first place. The right to vote becomes meaningless if an eligible citizen is unable to exercise it.
The electoral roll is therefore not merely an administrative list. It is a record of political citizenship. Decisions affecting inclusion, deletion or verification of voters require procedures that are clear, lawful and capable of independent examination.
The same principle applies to the broader conduct of elections. Citizens should know what the rules are, political parties should know that those rules will be applied consistently, and the Commission should be able to demonstrate that its decisions arise from law and constitutional duty rather than political convenience.
This is where institutional independence becomes more than a constitutional phrase. An institution can be legally independent and still lose public confidence if its conduct creates a persistent perception of dependence on political power. Independence must therefore be visible in institutional behaviour: in decision-making, transparency, consistency and the willingness to answer legitimate questions.
The government of the day has a particular responsibility in this regard. It may have won an election, but it does not thereby acquire ownership of the institutions that conduct future elections. A government is temporary; the constitutional machinery through which governments are chosen must endure.
The same responsibility applies to political parties. Opposition parties have every right to scrutinise the Election Commission and question its decisions. But allegations concerning electoral wrongdoing carry enormous consequences and should therefore be supported by credible evidence. When political rhetoric replaces evidence, it can weaken confidence in the very democratic process that parties depend upon to obtain power.
Citizens also have a role. They should neither accept every allegation nor dismiss every concern. A healthy democracy requires citizens who are willing to question powerful institutions but equally willing to follow evidence wherever it leads.
That distinction is especially important today, when an allegation can travel across social media within minutes and acquire the appearance of fact before it has been properly examined. Democracy needs sceptical citizens, but it also needs disciplined public debate.
The ultimate test of an electoral system is therefore not whether every participant is satisfied with the result. That is impossible. The test is whether the system provides a legitimate means for resolving political disagreement. If one party wins, another loses and both accept that the constitutional rules have been fairly applied, democracy has done its work.
But if citizens begin to believe that elections themselves cannot be relied upon to reflect their choices, the consequences are much deeper. Political defeat becomes harder to accept, accusations of illegitimacy become easier to make, and every subsequent election risks becoming another battle over the credibility of the process rather than a contest over the country’s future.
That is why the Election Commission must protect something larger than the conduct of an election. It must protect the principle that political power belongs to the people and can be transferred peacefully through a process governed by constitutional rules.
Its responsibility is not to produce a particular result. It is to ensure that the result genuinely belongs to the voters.
This is the democratic lesson that should emerge from every controversy involving the Election Commission. The institution should not be above scrutiny, but neither should it become the object of partisan manipulation. Its decisions should be examined, its explanations tested and its independence protected.
The stakes are ultimately larger than any Chief Election Commissioner, government or political party. Governments change, commissioners change and political majorities change. The constitutional principle remains the same: political power belongs to the people and must be transferred through elections that are conducted fairly and impartially.
That is what the Election Commission is ultimately responsible for protecting. It does not decide who should govern India. It must ensure that citizens, and only citizens through their votes, decide who will govern. When that principle is secure, democracy is secure. When it is seriously called into question, democracy itself has reason to worry.
Oswald Pereira, a senior journalist, has written ten books, including The Vijay Revolution: People Power & the Politics of Hope, Beyond Autobiography of a Yogi, The Newsroom Mafia, Chaddi Buddies, The Krishna-Christ Connexion, How to Create Miracles in Our Daily Life and Crime Patrol: The Most Thrilling Stories. Oswald is a disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda, and practises Kriya Yoga.
More Stories by Oswald Pereira
Some images are AI generated